-
Haustein, S.; Sugimoto, C.; Larivière, V.: Social media in scholarly communication : Guest editorial (2015)
0.02
0.018238677 = product of:
0.036477353 = sum of:
0.036477353 = sum of:
0.01796359 = weight(_text_:c in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01796359 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.114332706 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.018513763 = weight(_text_:22 in 3809) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018513763 = score(doc=3809,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3809, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3809)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 20. 1.2015 18:30:22
-
Larivière, V.; Gingras, Y.; Archambault, E.: ¬The decline in the concentration of citations, 1900-2007 (2009)
0.01
0.013091208 = product of:
0.026182417 = sum of:
0.026182417 = product of:
0.052364834 = sum of:
0.052364834 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.052364834 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15950468 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 22. 3.2009 19:22:35
-
Hu, B.; Dong, X.; Zhang, C.; Bowman, T.D.; Ding, Y.; Milojevic, S.; Ni, C.; Yan, E.; Larivière, V.: ¬A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications (2015)
0.01
0.012702176 = product of:
0.025404353 = sum of:
0.025404353 = product of:
0.050808705 = sum of:
0.050808705 = weight(_text_:c in 2337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050808705 = score(doc=2337,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.32338172 = fieldWeight in 2337, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2337)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Larivière, V.; Sugimoto, C.R.; Macaluso, B.; Milojevi´c, S.; Cronin, B.; Thelwall, M.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record : an analysis of roles and relationships (2014)
0.01
0.010585148 = product of:
0.021170296 = sum of:
0.021170296 = product of:
0.04234059 = sum of:
0.04234059 = weight(_text_:c in 1285) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04234059 = score(doc=1285,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 1285, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1285)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this article investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) the elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers-both published and unpublished-have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of published and unpublished papers.
-
Lachance, C.; Poirier, S.; Larivière, V.: ¬The kiss of death? : the effect of being cited in a review on subsequent citations (2014)
0.01
0.008981795 = product of:
0.01796359 = sum of:
0.01796359 = product of:
0.03592718 = sum of:
0.03592718 = weight(_text_:c in 1310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03592718 = score(doc=1310,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 1310, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1310)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Shu, F.; Julien, C.-A.; Larivière, V.: Does the Web of Science accurately represent chinese scientific performance? (2019)
0.01
0.008981795 = product of:
0.01796359 = sum of:
0.01796359 = product of:
0.03592718 = sum of:
0.03592718 = weight(_text_:c in 5388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03592718 = score(doc=5388,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 5388, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5388)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Lisée, C.; Larivière, V.; Archambault, E.: Conference proceedings as a source of scientific information : a bibliometric analysis (2008)
0.01
0.007484829 = product of:
0.014969658 = sum of:
0.014969658 = product of:
0.029939316 = sum of:
0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 2356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029939316 = score(doc=2356,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 2356, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2356)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
-
Vincent-Lamarre, P.; Boivin, J.; Gargouri, Y.; Larivière, V.; Harnad, S.: Estimating open access mandate effectiveness : the MELIBEA score (2016)
0.01
0.007484829 = product of:
0.014969658 = sum of:
0.014969658 = product of:
0.029939316 = sum of:
0.029939316 = weight(_text_:c in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029939316 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15711682 = queryWeight, product of:
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.045548957 = queryNorm
0.1905545 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- MELIBEA is a directory of institutional open-access policies for research output that uses a composite formula with eight weighted conditions to estimate the "strength" of open access (OA) mandates (registered in ROARMAP). We analyzed total Web of Science-(WoS)-indexed publication output in years 2011-2013 for 67 institutions in which OA was mandated to estimate the mandates' effectiveness: How well did the MELIBEA score and its individual conditions predict what percentage of the WoS-indexed articles is actually deposited in each institution's OA repository, and when? We found a small but significant positive correlation (0.18) between the MELIBEA "strength" score and deposit percentage. For three of the eight MELIBEA conditions (deposit timing, internal use, and opt-outs), one value of each was strongly associated with deposit percentage or latency ([a] immediate deposit required; [b] deposit required for performance evaluation; [c] unconditional opt-out allowed for the OA requirement but no opt-out for deposit requirement). When we updated the initial values and weights of the MELIBEA formula to reflect the empirical association we had found, the score's predictive power for mandate effectiveness doubled (0.36). There are not yet enough OA mandates to test further mandate conditions that might contribute to mandate effectiveness, but the present findings already suggest that it would be productive for existing and future mandates to adopt the three identified conditions so as to maximize their effectiveness, and thereby the growth of OA.
